Subject:
|
Re: Weren't we all expecting this??
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:21:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4245 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
| |
Maybe neither the governmental standards or Mega Bloks are at fault but
rather the “non-profit” magazine which stated that ;
“When the results were returned by a lab, which Mr. Clerk said he could not
identify because of a confidentiality agreement, a yellow Maxi block was the
only toy that exceeded the 600-parts-per-million limit for lead set by Canada
and the United States. Blue and red Maxi blocks showed no lead at all.”
They did not exceed the limit for lead set by Canada because the limit set
was based on one standard test and the magazine decided to do a completely
different test. So that statement is from what I read patently false. All
limits imposed on contaminants also include a Standard Method of testing
attached to that limit. The limit that would be set by Canada or US using
the test the unknown laboratory used--and what kind of confidentiality should
be needed for the lab-very well might be completely different than the limit
based on the methodology of Health Canada.
And why, for example is the magazine new standard more realistic than that of
Health Canada. This is a classic case of testing for apple and using an
orange test
|
Excellent points, Tommy! The need for transparency in a situation like this is
great, especially when the burden of proof is upon the party making the
accusation. In this case, the magazine must support its claim in a verifiable
way. Instead, the magazine is simply making an assertion and requiring the
readership to take it on faith.
I suspect that this fact played into Mega Brands’ decision to seek an
injunction against the magazine.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Weren't we all expecting this??
|
| Keep in mind, what the magazine asserted was that there was lead in the yellow maxi block, not that lead could be passed on to a child swallowing it. Hydrochloric acid (stomache) is not sulfuric acid. The magazine went on to recommend the product as (...) (17 years ago, 19-Oct-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Weren't we all expecting this??
|
| (...) Maybe neither the governmental standards or Mega Bloks are at fault but rather the "non-profit" magazine which stated that ; "When the results were returned by a lab, which Mr. Clerk said he could not identify because of a confidentiality (...) (17 years ago, 19-Oct-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
